沙丘路的毛圈狮子

wrote a post ·

From ICE-OKX to Coinbase-Bybit: The victim narrative is the most costly lesson for those venturing overseas

Author Charlie, Head of OSL Americas, Venture Partner at Generative Ventures. Previously served as Vice President of the crypto unicorn Strike (participated in El Salvador's Bitcoin bill and was responsible for Bitcoin and stablecoin payment operations in Latin America), macro and currency analyst at the trillion-dollar fund Franklin Templeton, and an early member of global payments giant Adyen's North American team.

The article represents the author's personal views and does not reflect the positions of related companies.

This weekend, WeChat public accounts and Twitter feeds in the Chinese crypto community were flooded: Following ICE's investment in OKX, rumors spread that Coinbase was in talks with Bybit, with U.S.-compliant institutions cheaply invading offshore markets, and white capital beginning to harvest Chinese-run exchanges once again.

Then switching to the English side, the tone of Bloomberg and Reuters reports was completely different. They discussed the strategic complementarity between traditional exchange infrastructure and crypto distribution networks, and how the two systems are integrating under the trend of tokenization.

Both sides were looking at the same event, but the stories they read were entirely different.

The narrative within the Chinese circle feels satisfying and even cathartic because it naturally fits into a familiar dramatic structure: on one side are developed countries wielding regulatory power, and on the other side are emerging market players who have grown through hardship, with the storyline progressing as 'they come to take our fruits.'

The problem is, satisfaction does not equate to accuracy. More dangerously, once this narrative becomes an instinctive reaction, it can rob people of their ability to understand the global market.

ICE–OKX: What Exactly Was Bought for 25 Billion USD

ICE's investment in OKX was a deal officially announced on March 5th.

The structure is clear: ICE takes a minority stake and board seats; ICE authorizes OKX to use spot prices and launch futures under US regulation; OKX, subject to regulatory approval, will distribute ICE's US futures and NYSE tokenized equities to its global clients.

According to Reuters on the same day, the valuation was 25 billion USD.

This is far from being a cheap takeover. It's more like a two-way exchange of cards.

ICE has the US regulatory framework, traditional market infrastructure, institutional clients, and the orthodox entry point into the securities markets.

OKX has crypto-native global users, on-chain infrastructure, offshore liquidity, and round-the-clock distribution capabilities.

Both sides are trading their scarcest resources to acquire what the other finds hardest to replicate.

OKX is no passive player waiting to be absorbed.

In April 2025, its US operations will officially restart, with OKCoin users migrating to the OKX platform, clearly rebuilding its entry point into the US market.

However, as early as February 2025, OKX’s operating entity had just pleaded guilty for operating a US money transfer business without a license, resulting in a fine of $504 million.

This means OKX’s demands from the US are very specific: having paid such a heavy price, it now needs to rebuild its qualifications, rhythm, and credibility for engaging with US regulators and capital markets.

Many Chinese discussions completely overlook this point: the most expensive thing in the global market is often not user growth, PR buzz, or even entirely the product, but legitimacy within certain systems.

Legitimacy in the US market is especially costly because it encompasses regulation, capital markets, institutional trust, accounting disclosures, and political visibility.

You can dislike this system, call it hypocritical, double-standard, or hegemonic, but you cannot pretend it has no value.

So when ICE invests in OKX, it’s not about 'white people harvesting Chinese,' but rather Wall Street infrastructure players acquiring something they themselves cannot build – crypto-native distribution and a global reach.

OKX is simultaneously acquiring something it would struggle to organically develop – a stronger connector to the U.S. market.

Is there asymmetry in trading? Of course, but the root of that asymmetry lies primarily in institutional positioning, not skin color.

Coinbase and Bybit: Don’t apply the same template

Coinbase is not ICE.

ICE is essentially a market infrastructure operator and is not competing directly with Bybit as a 'U.S. retail crypto platform.'

Coinbase is entirely different. A publicly listed U.S. company, it carries the full set of baggage – SEC compliance, investor relations, disclosure requirements, public opinion, and brand implications – while actively expanding the boundaries of products within U.S. regulation.

Look at its roadmap for 2025.

In May, it acquired Deribit, gaining a foothold in derivatives markets outside the U.S., particularly in Europe and Asia. In the same month, it became the first exchange to offer 24/7 futures under CFTC regulation. In July, it rolled out perpetual-style futures in the U.S. In June, it stated publicly that tokenized equities were a major priority for the company, though implementation in the U.S. still requires an SEC no-action letter or exemption relief.

The main strategy becomes clear when viewed together: deepen product offerings within U.S. regulations, while expanding derivatives, liquidity, and international distribution outside of U.S. regulatory constraints.

It’s not a sudden whim to 'reap' a certain offshore entity; it’s about systematically filling the weakest yet most profitable part of the business.

What about Bybit? They haven’t shown any urgent intent to 'immediately Americanize.'

By January 2026, the official website still lists the US as an excluded jurisdiction, while in 2025 it obtained the Austrian MiCAR license and a full license from the UAE SCA.

This path seems more focused on thoroughly penetrating the EU and Middle East first, prioritizing licenses in non-US major jurisdictions. As for the US, they’re keeping their options open but aren’t in a rush.

Therefore, the most valuable aspect of 'Coinbase investing in Bybit' isn’t whether it will actually happen, but rather that it reveals a potential deal logic: if it goes through, what Coinbase is likely buying isn’t 'whitewashing Bybit,' but overseas users, offshore liquidity depth, international retail distribution, and certain tentacles it can't conveniently own within the US system.

Conversely, what Bybit is likely buying isn’t 'immediate entry into the US,' but the brand endorsement, institutional relationships, future compliance gateway, and long-term optionality that come with being a publicly listed company.

The asymmetry is real, but the victim narrative is false.

Some might say your explanation is too idealistic.

Isn’t the asymmetry in institutional positions just a more sophisticated and dignified form of exploitation?

US regulatory compliance status, access to US dollar capital markets, and a publicly traded company structure inherently give the US side stronger leverage at the negotiating table. Replacing 'exploitation' with 'asset exchange' merely softens the language.

This rebuttal is profound, but I think it only captures half of the issue.

The power asymmetry is real: whoever can access the U.S. capital markets, sell compliant products in the U.S., or speak more naturally in front of the SEC and CFTC naturally has greater bargaining power.

On a broader scale, the controversies over Europe’s implementation of MiCAR and France’s concerns about license passporting potentially becoming regulatory arbitrage also illustrate that so-called 'compliance' is never a static certificate, but rather a continually reassessed political and institutional asset.

But the other half is equally important: not all asymmetries should be framed as narratives of national victimhood.

Once this translation happens, reason gives way to emotional satisfaction.

Every move in a transaction will be interpreted as emotional harm rather than an exchange of interests.

You’ll view others’ strengths as moral offenses while refusing to acknowledge how much your own strengths are worth in the global market.

You replace the truly difficult question of 'how to build cross-system cooperation capabilities' with the easier but useless question of 'why are they bullying us again.'

This is precisely where many outbound companies have stumbled over the past decade.

It’s not because they weren’t hardworking enough, smart enough, or even because their products were subpar; it’s because they never psychologically placed themselves within the global ecosystem.

It's not about making trades, but about hedging emotions.

It's not about looking at the value chain and ecosystem, but about saving face.

It's not about thinking what unique value you can offer the other party, but about calculating how to prove you haven't been shortchanged.

The global market never rewards this kind of mindset.

The global market only rewards two abilities: whether you can clearly articulate what your scarcest card is; and whether you can acknowledge that the other party holds a card that you cannot replicate in the short term.

The real battleground lies in structure and ecosystems, not emotions.

Take OKX for example. What's truly valuable has never been just the label of 'a crypto exchange founded by someone of Chinese descent,' but rather its base of crypto-native users, global distribution, product execution capabilities, on-chain infrastructure, and liquidity network.

Take ICE for example. What’s truly valuable isn’t just the 'old American money,' but rather the regulatory framework, clearing system, institutional access, securities market brand, and increasingly clear tokenization ambitions.

By January 2026, ICE had already publicly announced the development of a 24/7 tokenized securities platform, and in March Nasdaq also announced a partnership with Payward, Kraken's parent company, to build tokenization infrastructure.

It’s hard to call this an isolated event; it looks more like a broader trend where traditional exchanges and crypto distribution networks are connecting with each other.

Understanding this layer reveals that the phrase 'don't view the global market through a victim mentality' is not some moral persuasion but rather a pragmatic business requirement.

Because once you become obsessed with that framework, you're bound to miss the real battleground.

The real battleground isn't about emotions; it's about structure and ecosystem. It's not about identity, but assets; it's not about who is more aggrieved, but who is more irreplaceable.

This is also why truly mature globalization doesn't resemble conquest or revenge as much as grafting.

You need to know where your roots grow and which branch to connect to.

If done incorrectly, even the best tree species won't survive. If done correctly, two seemingly unfamiliar systems can bear new fruit.

In my view, ICE-OKX represents a two-way swap between traditional market infrastructure and offshore crypto distribution networks; Coinbase-Bybit, if it eventually materializes, is more likely to be the US-compliant leader acquiring overseas reach, while the offshore leader buys into US options.

These are not romantic stories or national allegories but cold, calculated structural transactions.

It can be acknowledged that there are distinctions of strength, position, regulatory premium, and even geopolitical shadows, but there's no need to frame it as an old narrative of 'white people exploiting Chinese people.'

That kind of framing most easily stirs emotions but does the least to help anyone genuinely looking to go global.

The biggest fear when going global is never that others are stronger than you, but that you interpret everything as others having ill intentions towards you.

The former can still push you to grow, but the latter will only prevent you from ever developing negotiation skills, cooperation skills, and an ecosystem perspective.

Consider yourself as part of the ecosystem, and think clearly about what you can offer others and what others can offer you.

If you can't figure it out, going global will always remain just a slogan. If you do figure it out, even if the people at the table have different backgrounds, languages, and nationalities, deals will still get done and value will still be created together.

551K Views